European and External Relations Committee, 22 Jun 2004

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 22, 2004

Official Report 265KB pdf

---

Low-cost Carriers (European Commission Decision)

The next item is the report compiled by Phil Gallie on the European Commission's findings in the case of Ryanair and Charleroi airport. The committee will recall that we agreed to appoint Phil Gallie as a reporter on the issue and I record the committee's thanks for the succinct report that he has brought to us today. I am sure that we have all had the chance to read it, but I shall give him the opportunity to say a few words to introduce it.

We stayed very much within the guidelines that were set out, although those guidelines were slightly expanded in respect of phases 1 and 2. We apologise for not going forward into a wider review, which we did not do simply because of the time and effort that that would have taken and because of the fact that, to some degree, the report becomes sub judice, as Ryanair has appealed the Charleroi decision. Apart from that, in connection with the original phase 2 comments, it has come to our attention since our report was compiled that a report has been prepared for the Committee of the Regions. Members might like to amend our report to make some reference to that.

Who is that report by?

It has been written by an English councillor for the Committee of the Regions. I do not have the details of the paper with me, but the clerks are well aware of it. It is something that we could perhaps refer to under sections 31 and 32 of the report. If the committee decides to go along with the conclusions and recommendations, we could simply add a reference to the existence of that report to the recommendation in paragraph 63.

Thank you. Do other members have comments?

I thank Phil Gallie for his hard work. It is a good report and contains a lot of useful information, facts and figures. I would be happy to include the additional references that Phil suggested in the body of the report and in the recommendations, and I am happy to go along with the recommendations. He was right to highlight the slight difficulty of the sub judice nature of the matter while we await news of the final appeal, and it would be proper for us to bear that in mind.

I know that the committee will want to thank the clerks and the Scottish Parliament information centre researchers.

We added that into the report. I had hoped to list people's names, but I would certainly like to thank Nick Hawthorne and Alan Rehfisch, who were excellent and provided much of the meat of the report.

As other colleagues have said, Phil Gallie's report is a useful and comprehensive document. The recommendation in paragraph 63 in particular, which concerns Inverness airport, is a salient point well made. We obviously cannot highlight any recommendation above any other, but that is certainly an important point and one that I hope the Executive and its agencies will address with a degree of urgency.

I congratulate Phil Gallie on his report. I hope that it did not take him away from memorising the EU constitution. It is an excellent report and I was delighted when I read through it, and I have no difficulty with adding a reference to the Committee of the Regions report to the recommendations.

Paragraph 14 makes a brief reference to public service obligations, and that is a point that could perhaps have been developed slightly more in the context of which other European countries have PSOs. There certainly seems to be confusion in this Parliament as to which countries operate PSOs. Like Alasdair Morrison, I am concerned about Inverness Dalcross airport. We want PSOs to be implemented. Therefore, I think that we should add the issue of PSOs to paragraph 62, as well as a recommendation that the private finance initiative at Inverness airport be considered further. I believe that there is the prospect of the private ownership of Inverness airport being bought out and brought into public ownership. Inverness airport was one of the first PFI projects in Scotland and I believe that to buy it out would cost in the region of only £13 million. If it were being bought out, that would make our recommendations firmer. Obviously, the committee can consider that point.

Can you just elaborate, Margaret, on what you want to add to paragraph 62?

I want the recommendations to place more emphasis on PSOs so that the routes from Dalcross airport can be not only maintained but expanded. British Airways and bmi currently run the routes, which give access to Heathrow and Gatwick airports. The list of low-cost airlines—for example, Snowflake—that are closing their routes shows that international communications from Dalcross are being restricted. We should consider—I have not worked this out as a sentence, as you have probably gathered—the possibility of buying out Dalcross airport, which would cost, I believe, in the region of £13 million. However, SPICe could check that figure. I hope that that makes sense.

I join colleagues in complimenting Phil Gallie and the others who were involved in drafting the report, which is very useful. I suppose that it is inevitable and quite proper that anything that Phil drafts will pay a lot of attention to Prestwick. Equally, my colleagues from the north have referred to Inverness airport. I hope that it will be possible somewhere in the report's conclusions to make a passing reference to the fact that we are all keen on encouraging opportunities for low-cost flights to and from other Scottish destinations, whether Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Glasgow or anywhere else in Scotland where the opportunity may arise.

I, too, congratulate Phil Gallie on a comprehensive report, which I believe is not unconnected to the inquiry that we are undertaking, certainly in terms of the future of the Scottish Executive's interim route development fund. The report has helpful information on that. Clearly, that fund is a hit-and-miss one, given that there are flights or routes that are supported but then cease to operate. That is inevitable with such things, but it is certainly something that we must acknowledge and pay attention to in our final report on the promoting Scotland inquiry.

There is not much point in promoting Scotland if we cannot connect Scotland in the easiest way. I am concerned about direct flights and the nature and comfort of them, particularly those to Europe. They seem to be reverting to almost Neville Chamberlain-type planes, bouncing across the North sea. All that is missing is Neville Chamberlain curtains to match.

And umbrellas.

Anyway, I will leave it there.

Thank you for the comments. We must reach a conclusion on two issues. First, we must decide what we do with Phil Gallie's report; and secondly, we must decide whether we agree to make the changes that members suggested. Given that this is our last meeting before the recess, I suggest that, unless members have proposed wordings now, we do not make any changes just now. We can do that by e-mail or other correspondence over the next couple of days.

We can get the clerks to e-mail us.

Yes, we can get the clerks to do that and ensure that members are happy with what is proposed. Are members happy with the suggested course of action? Does Phil Gallie want to respond to that?

Yes. I would certainly go along with what is suggested. I think that Margaret Ewing's proposed change can be relatively easily accommodated by just adding a few words towards the end of paragraph 62 suggesting that the Scottish Executive consider the position.

I understand the point that John Home Robertson makes, but the case of Ryanair and Charleroi initiated the report, so we inevitably highlighted that issue in the report. However, the desirability of low-cost flights is emphasised in the recommendations and conclusions and the real threat to Edinburgh airport, Glasgow airport and any of the other airports would be those low-cost flights going to publicly owned airports elsewhere. I understand why John Home Robertson would like such a reference to be in the report and I have no objection to that, but it was not included because I was concentrating on a particular issue.

Fair enough.

The rest of the committee might be happy if Margaret Ewing, John Home Robertson, Phil Gallie and the clerks came up with wording. Are members happy with that way forward?

Members indicated agreement.

The second issue that we should discuss is what to do with the report. Perhaps we could send a copy to the Executive for comment and copies to the Parliament's Local Government and Transport Committee and the European Commission. Are there any other suggestions? I am looking for ideas.

What about sending a copy to the Finance Committee?

We could send copies to the Finance Committee as well as the Local Government and Transport Committee.

Phil Gallie's first recommendation is that

"the Committee … suspends further action and investigations into the Charleroi Decision, pending the outcome of the appeal to the European Courts."

Should we hold on to the report until we find out what that decision is, or should we send it now anyway? What does Phil Gallie recommend?

It is worth sending the report now because it makes several points, not least about Inverness, and there is additional information that is contained in the material that SPICe provided that could be of use to others. Passing the report on now would be useful, but I would like to think that the committee will want to return to the matter after it hears the results of the appeal.

That could be the way forward. The committee is happy to endorse the report and we again thank Phil Gallie and those who helped him for all their efforts. The report vindicates our decision to appoint reporters. This is the first time that we have done so and I hope that the committee will be more inclined to appoint reporters when specific issues arise in future.

There were a number of reporters in the previous parliamentary session, but you are right to say that this is the first time that there has been a reporter in this session.

Thanks for rubbing that in—we will take that on board. Appointing a reporter was the committee's decision and I hope that we can use the mechanism again in the future.